tv [untitled] September 15, 2013 6:00am-6:31am PDT
mentioned they have an open door policy. i want to be a good neighbor. we've never made any complaints. in my letter, we are a luxury hotel, recently remodeled. we became a marriott. unfortunately nearly half of my hotel rooms are in that dividing wall to overlook the garden. you can put as much foliage that you have, but it doesn't negate. what happens is this funnel effect every night even without music that causes great complaints from my guest. up to 200 people a night are complaining about this noise that they can't get a good night's sleep. they get upset and won't come back. we have a bigger issue. the level is very
loud. i have been to the bar myself. i like it. i have had drinks there. even without music you have to shout because it's just an echo environment. we have concerns about that on a daily basis. we have guest paying up to $400 a night and it's very difficult for me to explain to them that there is this loud bar every night with music. even with the double pane windows, it doesn't help. it really is an outdoor venue. it's a small interior and very large outdoor exterior. it's not a venue for public, it faukts -- affects a lot of our guest. i have been on the board of the hotel council and i'm
very passionate about the city, the noise is a big concern for our guest, not for us. it's an on going issue. we would rather not have live music at the venue. >> i have a question. have you done any sound test of the ambient noise? >> no. but i invite anybody to come over. it's not about the decibels. you can just go to any guest room that has a window overlooking the bar and it resonates all the way up. it's surrounded by three buildings. it just very loud and there is a strong base that is just loud talking and music playing all the time. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is melissa lee.
i live at 579 geary street directly across of jones. if you look at the yelp photos that she showed earlier. it's my home are the red brick and yell ow. my balcony faces. i have never had complaints with them. i have been around to many of their events. my son sleeps through the sound. it's okay to have the permit. they have been more than happy in accommodating with any of these parties. they let us know when it's going to happen, if i have any questions or complaints or anything. which i have never had any complaints. i always e-mail and text them and i get a response. i'm very happy they have come to my neighborhood. they have increased my property value.
>> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is kent, i live on sutter street which is a block away. i have never heard any excessive noise coming from jones. i think it's a great business for the neighborhood. i go there frequently. a lot of my friends go there. i think it's a great business. it's definitely improved the quality of life in the neighborhood. i have never had any complaints. >> thank you. >> any other public comments on this item? >> seeing none, we'll take rebuttal starting with the appellant. you have 3 minutes. >> we have an appeal letter
from 691 post. eric cohen. he says he's a resident of 691 post for over 10 years. i urge you in the strongest possible terms to deny any permits. since the day it's opened the bar has substantially reduced the quality of my life. both my bedroom and living room face jones street and i'm regularly awakened between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m.. they are breaking bottom -- bottles by patrons. jones has done nothing to mitigate this problem. now they want to host live music performances until 10:00 p.m.. the neighborhood is already noisy. i would argue that existing background noise of this neighborhood is
substantially different than subjecting people to this noise. if you live adjacent to the bar that had created an on going nuisance in your neighborhood would you permit them to host live performances. the only answer is no. i would urge you to deny this. >> i have showed everybody the paperwork e-mailed cl ugg the letter from their owner supporting the bar. they told me they are surprised that their supporting the bar. they didn't know it was negative affecting the surrounding businesses and apartments. >> how this ties into the music
venue. people come in for live music. they feel entertained and drink a lot and that far they are filtering out on the streets and there are about 200 people leaving and that's where we have these problems. if he wants to be a good neighbor have signs saying that this is a residential neighborhood and that we would like to have peace and quiet and be respectful of your neighbors. i have asked them and they won't do that. >> the sound coming out of the business on jones when after being drunk until 3 or 4 every night and they speak out louder and their noise yelling to each other reverb rates. people are hearing it all the way down to o'farrell. >> we can hear from the permit
holders now. you have rebuttal if you care to use it. >> thank you commissioners for your time once again. a couple of things with regard to the comments that the manager made and the rebuttal over here. there is actually a bar directly across the street from us on geary which has entertainment every night of the week. as often as not their windows and doors are open. and i think that probably a lot of this issue is actually not our patrons at all. i mean certainly not at our entertainment because once again we don't have entertainment every night and we don't intend to have entertainment. on a night lie basis i suspect very strongly that a lot of these issues are stemming from the bar across
the street that is already operating with entertainment at this time. we are simply the new kid on the block and as such are bearing the brunt of people's frustration. just to throw it out there. i was one of the folks that wrote the good neighbor policy for the city of san francisco 10 years ago. it was myself and jim nicko who put an enter -- end to the war in south of market. it's not that we don't care, it's not that we are not competent. we do everything that we can and we do very much care about being good neighbors and we are going to continue to do that after this permit issue. >> are you finished? a couple of questions. >> is your bar restaurant
air-conditioned? >> yes it is. >> your policy is to keep the doors and windows closed? >> depending on the night we keep them open or closed typically there is more people outside than inside. corporate events there is more of a distinction so we tend to keep the doors closed. >> is smoking allowed outside? >> no. smoking is allowed only according to the law we are made to only allow smoking at the rail on the geary side of our patio. >> how would you define background music? >> what we currently play you basic can't, i mean background music you walk into a restaurant. it there to prevent what's called dead air. so if i'm on a date with jordan and
the conversation is kind of running a little, it's spat erg a little bit and quite all of a sudden, there is music in the background that makes people less anxious. that's background music. it fills the void between people talking about what they did earlier in the day or arguing about stuff they are going to do tomorrow. >> we strict hee play pandora. they are small speakers. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any rebuttal from the department? >> thanks. i will be quick. i just wanted to mention that we are surprised to hear about all of these folks who are unhappy
and complaining since there was a 6 months period where we hear issues and we brought the applicant back to commission if we had known and in requesting information from the police we also didn't get any indication that there were this number of people who were upset. i also want to remind the board that our good neighbor policy does require this venue to have a phone line available for their neighbors that's available and somebody picks it up during entertainment whenever they do it. patron noise as i stated earlier is tough and real but it isn't directly tied to this permit in these conditions. i wanted to be clear with that. if in fact mr. glikshtern's allegations of the bar across
the street on geary who has an entertainment is correct, we'll respond to that post haste because they are under our regulatory authority as well and if the windows are open, that's a volition. >> are there other businesses in that area? >> possibly. i'm not sure, there is a lot of bars and restaurants for sure. there are a few around there regulated by our department. between us and the police department, i believe that, at nighttime business is our responsibility. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> any comments? i guess i
will start. i feel the issue here has less to do with the permit than with the general ambiance environment that goes with an establishment of this kind. i think it is interesting that there weren't comments, there weren't complaints during the trial period and i feel that the permit was appropriately issued. >> i would approach it from the two portions that are before us. i would agree with that assessment with respect to the indoor. the entertainment commission has plenty of rules and testing capabilities to handle performance and the sound levels with indoor venues. i'm not so sure about the outdoor venue. the issue here is whether for their own
businesses purposes, they are allowed to provide what maybe or what will be potential nuisance to their neighbors. i'm not supportive of that whether a, one party gets what they want and others don't quite satisfied with it. >> just to clarify sunday is 9-4 p.m.? 11-4 p.m.. i'm sorry. yes. >> well, you mean everybody is awake and not hung over at the time? >> it doesn't go until late in the night. i will just throw in i would echo the sentiment of vice-president lazarus and i think that the additional amendments are fairly limited
and reasonable especially the 90 day period on the outdoor noise. so, i would support upholding these permits. >> i will move to deny the appeal and support the permit as issued. on the basis that it's co-compliant. >> yes. thank you. >> mr. pacheco, when you are ready call to roll. >> there is the motion by the vice-president to deny the appeal and uphold these permit amendments on the basis that it is code compliant. on that motion to hold, commissioner fung, no, commissioner hurtado,
the vote is 3-2. the vote is upheld. >> thank you. the national -- next item is no. 7.77 appeal no. 13-057 david & niloufer king, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 4162 & 4164 26th street. protesting the issuance on may 08, 2013, to tony szeto & annie kong, permit to alter a building 3rd story vertical addition and onestory horizontal addition, interior remodel, structural upgrade, plumbing and electrical workk. application no. 2012/06/19/2903s. public hearing held on august 21, 2013. for further consideration today. note: matter was continued to allow time for the permit holder to submit the approved plans; no additional briefing allowed.>> thank you. -- next item is no. 7. 77 appeal no. 13-057 david & niloufer king, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 4162 & 4164 26th street. protesting the issuance on may 08, 2013, to tony szeto & annie kong, permit to alter a building 3rd story vertical addition and onestory horizontal addition, interior remodel, structural upgrade, plumbing and electrical workk. application no.
2012/06/19/2903s. public hearing held on august 21, 2013. for further consideration today. note: matter was continued to allow time for the permit holder to submit the approved plans; no additional briefing>> thank you. -- next item is no. 7. 77 appeal no. 13-057 david & niloufer king, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 4162 & 4164 26th street. protesting the issuance on may 08, 2013, to tony szeto & annie kong, permit to alter a building 3rd story vertical addition and onestory horizontal addition, interior remodel, structural upgrade, plumbing and electrical workk. application no. 2012/06/19/2903s. public hearing held on august 21, 2013. for further consideration today. note: matter was continued to allow time for the permit holder to submit the approved plans; no additional briefing allowed. oo we can 1234 we can start with the appellants. >> before you start, madam, you want to deal with the information that was provided? >> there is an issue that came up because the board requested plans early, they submitted plans and additional briefing and photographs cht it's really up to the board to decide if he wants to accept this into the record or continue this matter further to allow the appellants to submit the briefing. it's up to you. i found that the information provided was what i needed to review the case. >> the additional briefing? >> yes. >> i think the issue is if they submitted an additional briefing do we need to give the other side the opportunity to do the same? for me i was able to decide on the plans alone. for that i would not consider the materials and everybody is in the same place, necessary
same position. >> have you had an opportunity to see the additional submissions by the permit holder? >> i have. the additional submissions for the same plans that were approved several months ago plus a battery of photographs. >> do you have any objection to the consideration? i'm of the same view to commissioner hurtado. i don't need additional documentation. we don't want to prejudice your side because we have requested only the plans. >> you have the plans. the photographs. >> but you did not submit any additional. >> we were told we weren't supposed to and we didn't. >> if you had an opportunity would you do so? >> i don't think so. no. >> all right. we should proceed. >> talk for three minutes? >> yes. >> okay. we are i'm david king.
we are aware that this model is completely legal and complies with the building code that it is not sensitive to the needs and the quality of life of the neighbors and the neighborhood. the extension up the fourth floor and out into the yard and back blocks our light not just a little but significantly. it boxed us in. it impinges on the park light open space center of the block. we note that the photographs supplied in the additional material of the builders failed to show any representation of the impact of their proposed structures on
our house. they do show quite well how the fourth floor wraps the line of the three identical victorian. in addition i want to remind the board that we were deprived of being able to voice our concerns. the applicants have been aware of our objections for many months. we had a meeting. we met with the architect and we were assured changes and plans, but nothing has come from that meeting. there has been no communication since our appeal hearing 3 weeks ago. we've seen really no efforts to address our concerns. all of the neighbors, hundred percent on both sides of the proposed project, the people who they
are immediately objected support our appeal. our objections have been persistently ignored and i really don't understand why in the absence of any constructive proposals from the applicant to resolve this, we and the neighbors are counting on this board to direct mediation that addresses and resolves the issues for everything concerned. thank you very much. thank you. >> for the record here is a letter to president haung from our neighbors out of town who spoke last time supporting the appeal. >> all right. we can hear from
the permit holder. >> commissioners, i'm the architect for the this project. i will be brief. there was a proper process in this application. neighbors were notified for a neighborhood meeting and i have provided you with those mailing list at the requested continuation of the hearing. there was a long set of meetings and negotiations with neighbors and actual revisions to the accepted permit were made by the project sponsors in the interest of the concern that the neighbors had expressed. let me also be clear the concerns the neighbors expressed were related to the extension which for the addition became an issue. as was stated by the appellant, the planning code and the department has approved this
project in two iterations. in terms of the planning code we have designed in context of the historical set of three houses with the images that you have been provided in the context of the mid-block open space, something that was mentioned previously. if i can see this on the screen show you a diagram of the mid-block open space. this half portion of the subject property there is the addition that affects the mid-block open space we think without impact whatsoever. and finally to speak about the three houses which appear to the the same from the street but are not the same on the rear yard, the image on the right is the appellants property with a new stair and deck assembly and associated firewall along the east fire
alarm and the west of the subject property with a 12-foot expansion of the rear yard along the property line shared with the subject property. that is protected by a fire rate wall that extends to the deck level. just interesting to note that these small green portions here is a screen that was mocked up by the project sponsors in the interest of the concerns voiced by the pell appellants to demonstrate not only the setback but allows us to build an open railing thus providing more light to the neighbors as opposed to the sidewall that you see on the left side of the image. thank you. >> thank you. i'm sorry, i think the time is up. is there
anymore time, mr. pacheco. there is 17 seconds. do you want to use it? no. okay. >> thank you good evening. scott sanchez with the planning department. i will be brief. i want to confirm again based upon the plan submitted to the board, the project does comply with the planning code. they can building a larger structure at the rear. they have voluntarily decided to reduce the size. they have properly set it back to 4 feet. it's also setback three 3 feet on the west side of the property. it extends into the rear yard the same extent as adjacent to the property to the west. but they are maintaining, what's not a required side yard
setback but they are maintaining some preservation concerns regarding the spacing and setting of the buildings. so with that, i'm available for any questions you may have. thank you. >> in i public comments on item? anyone wishing to speak? okay. no public comment. then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners, when i received the drawings and i was looking for what in essence would be extraordinary impact upon the neighbor and upon the mid-block open space or upon the integration of the fourth floor into a fairly old structure of a very well
defined architectural style. i found that i did not find significant impacts on either all three that the mid-block open space is not continuous and it varies there. the set backs on the fourth floor mitigated visual appearance and that impact from both the street and from the rear and that the fact that the pop out is setback on both sides, i think, mitigates portions of it. and the fact that the adjacent wall to the west already does something very similar. so on that basis, i will not support the appeal. >> i would agree. i don't have much more to add to that.
we have a motion? >> sure. >> i'm going to move to uphold the permit and deny the appeal on the basis of it's co-compliance and residential design context review by planning department. >> the motion is from commissioner fung to uphold the permit on its basis that it's compliant, >> the residential design was reviewed by the department? >> confirmed by the department. >> again on the basis of co-compliance and the residential design was
confirmed by the planning department. on that motion to uphold president haung, commissioner hurtado, lazarus, honda. the vote is 5-0. the permit is held on that basis thank you. >> the next item is item no. 8. item 8: 88 appeal no. 13-091 francis derosa & janice roudebush, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 333 el camino del mar. protesting the issuance on july 10, 2013, to michelle guest carter, alteration permit remodel and addition to existing single-family residence; project scope includes conversion of basement into habitable space, interior remodel, and horizontal addition at first and second floors; scope also includes new roof penthouse, 500sf roof deck, kitchen remodel and one new bathroomm. application no. 2013/02/19/0440s for hearing today.